Before he moved to New York City, photographer Bob Carey donated one of his pictures to a fund raiser to support the battle against breast cancer. The photograph was very funny: it was a self-portrait of him dressed in a pink tutu; and the Tutu Project was born.
Six months after his arrival on the East Coast, his wife, Linda, was herself diagnosed with breast cancer. Along the road of their life with cancer, the Tutu Project has brought them laughter, a medicine I hear is very helpful for cancer patients and survivors.
In conjunction with publication of the book, ten prints each of 24 different photographs are being sold. Purchase of one print also gets you a copy of the book.
Today, the picture I've used in this article is my favorite.
You can see all 24 images, and participate in the fund raiser by buying a print, a t-shirt, or a copy of the book, by visiting The Tutu Project.
Apple's chiefs, Tim Cook and Peter Oppenheimer, have called a meeting for 9:00 A.M. today to discuss plans for their hundred-billion dollar cash reserves.
Apple does not pay its shareholders a dividend, so it does not distribute its earnings to its owners.
It is common for a company to retain and reinvest its income at the beginning of its life, and as we all learned in the 1990s, not very many technology companies will be profitable in the long-term.
Apple was founded in 1976 - it is almost exactly 36 years old. It has issued stock at different times in those thirty-six years. The last dividend it paid was one-and-a-half cents ($.015) per share in 1995. So, if you had a thousand shares you got fifteen dollars, and the company has issued a 2:1 split twice since then (so if you owned a hundred shares you now had 200 shares after the first split and four hundred shares after the second. Apple stock closed Friday at $585.57. In the last year has been as low as $310.50, and as high as $600.01. It has risen about 20% in the past month! These are amazing numbers.
Today, on a per share basis, Apple is holding reserves equal to approximately $104 per share, an absolutely remarkable amount of money. It is about ninety-eight billion dollars. Extra. In the bank. Like when you open your bank statement and see the Ending Balance. $98,000,000,000.
I have never known why Apple fails to pay its shareholders a dividend, but neither have I researched it.
I have always criticized Apple's failure to pay its shareholders a dividend, especially over the past few years when their reserves expanded so much.
At today's conference, Cook and Oppenheimer may very well announce establishment of a regular dividend. One analyst estimates that the company could easily pay out $14 per share annually. That is a pretty penny, as my mother used to say. In my experience, a company that pays two dollars per share annually is a good holding. Others may disagree, and I am in no way, shape or form an expert in the stock market, nor am I qualified to give advise about trading. I just know what I've seen and what I've researched and what I have traded myself.
Even if you have no stake in the stock market, even if you have no understanding of the stock market, anybody who follows Apple's trading price today is likely to see a remarkable amount of activity, numbers that reflect billions (possibly more than a hundred billion) of dollars.
Most of the common news sites and media sites have a Finance section with live updates of market prices and activity. Check in every now and then today and see what happens.
The stock traded at 585.57 Friday. How high will it get today, and how long will it retain that value, and how will this announcement affect the market as a whole? It is already trading at $604 in pre-market activity.
I have no idea what will happen, of course; but, I suspect it is going to be a very good day for the market.
I bring to my child-rearing skills all the love and fear and mania and phobia and talent and success that I have accumulated over the years and that I received during my child-rearing.
I have always been insecure about my child-rearing skills. I've only had one child, and I started late in life. In some ways I think it was wise (even if I didn't know it) to become a parent in my forties, because . . . well. . . if you knew me in my 20s and 30s, you'd understand.
Being insecure about parenting has made me learn to slow down when speaking and reacting to situations. It's easy to frighten a child, even when unintended.
Some of my child-rearing skills come from my own childhood, the skills I learned from my parents. Like all parents, they were successful in some areas and less successful in other areas. After all, since I've lived deep into my adult years, it is hard to say they failed!
Parenting is different now. It's rare to see a parent strike a child, There has been a decrease in the use of corporal punishment by most American parents. In the 1960s, it was commonplace to see a child disciplined with violence. I have mixed feelings about it all. I do not hit my child; but, I know people who do. And when I say "I know people who hit their child" I am referring to a slap or a spanking, not battering. As far as I know, none of the children in my social circle are battered children.
Choosing a non-violent approach to child-rearing does not mean that a child does not live in fear. The words and tone of voice I use have upset my child in the past as much as (more than?) a slap might have. Language is powerful.
Saying "I love you," to a person is a powerful statement and the person notices it. Children learn what that means. Saying "I hate you," is also a powerful statement, and children know what that means, too.
Of course it is more complicated than that. I can behave in a hateful manner when I am angry or disappointed, and the way I handle that anger or disappointment is a part of my child-rearing. When my child sees and hears me scream at a bad driver, I am teaching her a lesson about handling frustration and anger. Sadly, the lesson I am teaching her is that it is OK to lash-out in anger at strangers.
This is not a good lesson, and not a lesson I intend.
I have a potty-mouth behind the wheel of a car. My parents did, too.
I eventually learned a less negative way of venting about bad drivers. It's especially useful when the bad driver is navigating an expensive car. I say, in an almost cheerful voice: "High-performance car Low-performance driver."
After a few dozen times of saying this, my daughter asked me to explain a high-performance car. I remember that that I did a good job with it. I don't recall what I said, but I'm sure my tone became officious and deliberate and I carefully chose words that a 4-year-old would understand. She got it and we moved on to a new conversation.
The next time we were in traffic and I said "High-performance car . . . " she piped-up and said, in that adorable little-girl voice: "Low-performance driver."
I could have peed myself right then and there. We had a good laugh about it, and it is now part of our repertoire or repartee.
I thought about this stuff yesterday when I saw an article about the hashtag #ToMyUnbornChild. On March 12, 2012, the topic trended very high on Twitter as people made short statements about the things we would tell our unborn child, if we could.
The Tweets have included the exciting and naive things we might think and/or say as expectant parents:
You'll have everything I didn't, that's a guarantee.
you will grow up with two amazing dads, and will be instilled to love everybody, and to respect the rights of all.
ima always listen to you and understand your point of view before I judge and give my opinion.
no matter what gender you are, your going to be a soccer player.
I will never abandon you.
But, those are not the quotes this article discusses.
The person or group who comprise the account @Homophobes on Twitter are committed to exposing homophobia. Their article was about dreadfully homophobic remarks some people made with the hashtag #ToMyUnbornChild.
"100 Real Tweets from Homophobes Who Would Murder Their Gay Child" includes quotes that made my skin crawl and my stomach turn. I became so anxious while reading the list of tweets that I could not finish the article.
It bothers me that there is such hatred and fear in the world that someone would actually plan to kill their own child. I just can't imagine a life without unquestionable love for my child, and certainly cannot fathom the notion that someone would actually plan, to decide ahead of time, to kill their own child.
At my old website I had lists of favorite songs and albums. One list was my top ten favorite songs about New York City. I don't remember the order, but the standard fare was listed: "Shattered" and "Boy From New York City" and "Slow Boat To New York" and "Manhattan"; all the songs that we know about New York City.
Currently, my favorite song about New York City is "Empire State of Mind, Pt. II: Broken Down," by Alicia Keys. Since Liza Minelli's very famous "New York, New York," there has been no other song that captures the soul and sensibility of Manhattan.
The older song was written by John Kander and Fred Ebb for the movie of the same name. It was also recorded by Frank Sinatra and that version is played at the end of sporting events in New York City.
The lyric "If I can make it there, I'll make it anywhere. It's up to you, New York, New York" is now quintessentially New York. It seemed that no song would ever capture the sentiment and sensibility of New York City the way the Minelli/Sinatra song has.
Today's New York City is a different New York City than that of the 1930s or the 1980s; and scores (hundreds?) of songs have been written about it since.
At the end of Red Bull New York matches, the Alicia Keys song is played.
In it she uses the same line as an homage, not a rip-off: "They say if I can make it here I can make it anywhere." Then she offers lyrics that capture the sense and sensibility of today's Manhattan:
"Sirens all around and the streets are mean."
"I've got a pocketful of dreams, baby, I'm from New York."
"These streets will make you feel brand new, big lights will inspire you."
I know the version of "Empire State of Mind" that is most popular is the mash-up with Jay-Z; but, it fails to impress me as much as the Keys version alone. I like Jay-Z and think he deserves the success he enjoys. He became the keeper of the gate for urban music, for rap music, and I expected him to take it to new places. He hasn't. His work is brilliant and inspiring, and I will always buy his records; but, he has not taken the genre to new heights, he has conquered it and sits atop it on a hard-earned throne.
His version includes some perfect New York lines, too. Notably: "Shit, I made the Yankee cap more famous than a Yankee can." His version also pays homage to other New York City boroughs and many of its other stars, including (impressively) Afrika Bambaataa.
Together Keys and Jay-Z have redefined New York in song. If you don't have them, I recommend both Keys' "Elements of Freedom" and Jay-z's "The Blueprint 3."
Here is the original "New York, New York" from the movie:
TimeOut magazine recently released their Top 100 songs about New York City. Is your favorite listed?
In a letter dated March 9, 2012, Bishop Barry Knestout, an Auxiliary Bishop in the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., which the Maryland suburbs, concluded that Guarnizo engaged in "intimidating behavior toward parish staff and others that is incompatible with proper priestly ministry."
It is news to me that "intimidation" is improper in the Catholic hierarchy. I thought there were two thousand years of the Church using intimidation to run their business. I guess times have changed.
That aside, it is impressive that the Catholic hierarchy would respond so publicly to political pressure in the media.
The Diocese was quick to equivocate, of course, and published an op-ed in the Washington Post that actually supports the notion that it is OK for a priest to deny Communion to a homosexual.
In their insulting equivocation, the diocese expects us to accept:
a person should be in the state of grace, which means that they are not conscious of having committed a sin serious enough that it ruptures their relationship with God.
When I watch hundreds of Catholics from my diocese in Brooklyn line-up for Communion, I know that the state of grace in which they live varies dramatically from person to person. I also know that the majority of them have no idea what it means to be in a state of grace; and that perhaps even more of them are completely "conscious of having committed a sin serious enough that it ruptures their relationship with God." They may have confessed that sin and received absolution, but one only need visit a Catholic church on Saturday afternoon, when confessions are being heard, to know that a very tiny percentage of the people in line for Communion have seen the inside of a confessional recently.
No, the Diocese of Washington does not want to deny Communion to heterosexuals who are not in a state of grace, and would never dare to presume that one is a sinner. No, the Diocese of Washington is making it clear that they can deny Communion to homosexuals, as long as they don't behave in an "intimidating" manner.
I applaud the Church for suspending Guarnizo, but I believe they have done themselves, and all Catholics, a disservice by trying to frame the incident in the context of all homosexuals being sinners.
And the concluding statement: "The Second Vatican Council proclaimed that the Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life. As such it is a sign of unity, but it must be a unity that is based on authentic Church teaching and mutual respect in charity."
The use of the word "unity" seems to mean the exact opposite in this article. The Church's inability to see past their own homophobia is embarrassing. Even when the Church wants to make an inclusive statement about the rights of all Catholics, they can't get past their fear of sex and homosexuals.
This is a sad state of affairs.
Again, I applaud the Diocese for removing the offending priest from public ministry; but I am disheartened (again) by the Church's equivocation in the matter of homosexuality.
by Dick Mac
